September 15, 2012

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (AKA Sam Bacile) was not arrested, the L.A. Times updates to say, after it published an article that began like this:

Just after midnight, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Arab world.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies escorted a man believed to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to an awaiting car. The man declined to answer questions on his way out and wore a hat and a towel over his face. He kept his hands in the pocket of a winter coat.

I'm troubled that a newspaper in the United States would publish this article without seeing the need to say whether the man was arrested. Now, we're told he went in voluntarily.

Apparently, he acceded to questioning because he's on probation, having been convicted of a federal crime — bank fraud. The terms of his probation, we're told, say he "shall not access a computer for any other purpose" than his work. This obviously makes him less free than most U.S. citizens and much more vulnerable to requests to submit to questioning about his speech, but the photograph at the link in chilling.

Gaze on that picture and see our government in a sad, shameful display, staged — presumably — to cajole the enemies of free speech into blaming a private individual instead of our country — our country, the caretaker of the freedom that allowed him to speak.

ADDED: That's a scarf wrapped around his face, not a "towel." Is the L.A. Times nudging us to think of this man as a "towelhead"? And look at this headline in the Daily Mail: "The man who set the Middle East ablaze hides his face in shame...." Shame? If I were imputing a motivation to this man, I'd say he has a fully justified fear of becoming a recognizable face.

But I think our government is delusional if it thinks the people who are rioting in Africa and killing our diplomats would — if they knew the facts — see individuals like Nakoula as the proper focus of their rage. They don't believe the necessary premise: freedom as the superior value. As long as they favor a system in which blasphemy is outlawed and severely punished, they will continue to blame the American government for standing back and allowing blasphemy to flourish and flow everywhere. What good does it do to ask them to please understand our system? They hate this system.

Meanwhile, our government would scapegoat a free citizen. It's not even effectual scapegoating.

"Sheriff's officials could not be reached by The Times, but department spokesman Steve Whitmore told NBC4 that deputies assisting the federal probation department took Nakoula to the sheriff's substation in Cerritos for interviewing. "

When's the car full of law enforcement authorities going to pull up outside of Sebelius' house to question her about the mandate she enacted that is highly offensive to Catholics and conservative Christian groups?

Are they still in denial that invading our embassies and killing our ambassador were acts of WAR?! Our best and brightest I mean. Us dumkopfs get it but the b & b's have so much to compute in those giant brains of theirs that we'll just have to wait and see what our betters tell us about where we stand...I guess.

That the natives are restless in some far off land, concerns me a bit. But there are ways to deal with that and it involves bayonets, tear gas, and SAW's.

That our government from the highest to lowest, doesn't understand the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold, is terrifying.

Same with the Press. Where were these clowns when Serrano got paid out of my tax dollars for Piss Christ. I'm OK with him creating "Art". Don't like it, but it's his right. My right is to not have to pay for it.

Same with this movie.

From Obama to Clinton and on down, the public statement should be simple.

We think the movie was awful, but our Constitution guarantees people the right to make movies that offend others. Got a problem. Take it to our courts. In the meantime, we expect the government of (insert name) to fulfill it's international diplomatic obligations and protect our Embassy and citizens. Failure to do so will result in us pulling our people out of (insert name), canceling on visas of the citizens of (insert name) and warning US citzens not to travel to (insert name).

PS: I don't like Google much because of their China Human Rights record, but they understand the 1st Amend better that the Attorney General. Maybe they deserve a second chance..

The Drill Sgt, there should be no "we think the movie was awful". The government must not presume to judge quality in free speech. It must only presume to protect it. Hillary and Barack and those LA "authorities" are behaving like little children.

You may think the movie was awful, but our Constitution guarantees people the right free speech and to make movies that offend others. Got a problem. Take it to our courts. In the meantime, we expect the government of (insert name) to fulfill it's international diplomatic obligations and protect our Embassy and citizens. Failure to do so will result in us pulling our people out of (insert name), canceling on visas of the citizens of (insert name) and warning US citzens not to travel to (insert name).

There is no reason to be any more surprised at this than at the riots in the Mid-East. We have long been moving in this direction with the list of things we can't say because they are racist, bigoted, sexist, etc growing every day. In secret. I mean, who knew golf or Chicago were racist terms?

This is merely an extension of Obama's bowing to foreign dignitaries. It is a decline of the superior values of egalitarianism, free speech of our culture to other cultures, at the alter of multiculturalism.

I used to think the bowing thing Obama did wasn't such a big deal. When in Rome, do as the Romans do and all. But now I realize we are Rome. Not standing up for our culture and our values as the superior ones does this country a disservice, as well as other countries who recognize the tacit statement that their cultures as on equal footing with ours.

What a sad state of affairs, for our leaders to imply that intolerance, Burkas, and religious intolerance come close to the framework adopted in this country over 200 years ago.

Excellent and timely post. Shameful is the right word. It's as staged as any 'perp walk' and done for the usual purpose -- encourager les autres.

Two thoughts. First, freedom of speech is under attack here. Glenn R has been snarking that Team O has never much cared for that freedom anyway -- they're the party of the speech codes and dog whistles who think mentioning Chicago is racist.

Second, the academic flacks for Team O want to use treaties and other int'l law sources to cabin First Amendment freedoms. Many have noted before that the US is very much the exception in providing real restrictions on the gov't's ability to regulate or punish speech deemed offensive by some. (Krauty mentioned Serrano's Christ Piss in this context, and we all remember Guiliani's attempt to jawbone the Brooklyn Museum into removing Our Lady of the Elephant Droppings from a show.) Academics like Harold Koh see American exceptionalism here as a bug, not a feature, of our constitutional value structure. Over at Volokh, several were discussing two articles in the 2003 Stanford LR, making that pitch, one by Koh and the other by Peter Spiro, and suggesting ways to use int'l law as a vehicle to bring the US more into line with the restrictive approach to allegedly offensive speech common in the UK, Canada and the EU.

In short, many on the Dem side reject the idea that speech is free regardless of its impact on the feelings or etnic/religious pride of some in the audience. For them, the shame is that, in the US, you are free to insult the Prophet and thereby incite others to riot. Another reason why it is so important to vote that gang out of office.

The second point in Ann's post is just as impotant. The lefty narrative that the riots and murders were "about the youTube insult to the Prophet' is bunk. Ann says the real cause is that the barbarians can't stand our freedom not to be like them. Absolutely right. Bush said it more powerfully and directly in a speech not long after 9/11: they hate our freedoms.

What we are seeing is the reappearance of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition, in an updated lefty version. For the jihadis, it's not even all that updated -- pure and unwavering religious conformity is requires from all, especially those pesky Jews and Coptic Christians For the lefties in the West like Team O, ideas of victimization, especially in the form of racial and ethnic grievances, play the role that religious intolerance does for the jihadis. But it comes to the same thing.

The Rt. Hon. Abraham Delano Fitzgerald Mahatma Obama and his flunkies and sycophants want us to be more like Europe. In Europe, you don't have freedom of speech, the government grants it to you and tells you how much you have. In Britain and Canada, you have freedom of speech until Parliament decides to take it away from you.

Obama has got to go. They first asked Youtube to take down the video and now are going after the filmmaker?! Where is the outrage? My husband (a democrat) was fully on board with Bush when he went to Iraq (to my surprise). He has stood by that time and again and I kind of agree with him now. Liberals got to go -- they don't know how to run this country.

How do you deal with the fucking media in this country that has become a propaganda arm of Obama WH? Where there is no free press, masses don't become aware of what is going on. Where there is propaganda, masses become misinformed. I thought America was a better country for its free and unbiased press and I was wrong.

The solution to the Muslim problem is obvious, but it will not be accepted until one of our cities is nuked or a big bio-attack occurs. Sea of glass, amigo, sea of glass. Turn Mecca, Medina, Qom, and Fallujah into radioactive craters.

The folks in "the Arab World" are not rioting because they "hate us," "hate free speech," or whatever. They riot because their governments and religious leaders tell them that all their woes are because of the "Westerners" led by thr United States, not to mention "the Jews;" it is not their own faults, and certainly not their governments'.

Just more intent versions of the Democrat mantra her - everything would be great if it was not for the evil Republicans and "The Rich" wanting to hog it all for themselves and preventing the benevolent Democrats from spreading the joy around.

And that mantra coming from some of the wealthiest people in the nation and still being believed!

Dante said... I used to think the bowing thing Obama did wasn't such a big deal. When in Rome, do as the Romans do and all. But now I realize we are Rome. Not standing up for our culture and our values as the superior ones does this country a disservice, as well as other countries who recognize the tacit statement that their cultures as on equal footing with ours.

Let the Hate us, so long as they Fear us.- A Roman

Ask a first century Jew what happens when you piss off the Romans. You get Masada, ramps, seige towers and a chance to sit on sharpened stakes.

I would switch out Tehran for Fallujah. And, my problem with Mecca and Medina is that they are on the soil of a relatively good ally. But, I do understand the sentiment.

And, this may be another reason why Obama seems determined to strip us of much of our nuclear arsenal. He has proposed stripping down to a couple hundred nukes, while the ChiComs are building them as fast as they can, and the Ruskies still have thosands, are also starting to build their military.

This desperado was under suspicion of violating his parole by using a computer. You better believe the LA authorities sent their finest and lots of them to take him into custody. ThankGod we have these first responders to keep us safe. Even in the middle of the night.

It looks to me like Mr Obama's Cairo speech did little except to make him look weak in an area where weakness is exploited. I havent looked at the video in question, nor do I intend to, but our policy makers learned nothing from the Mohammed cartoons. That seems so long ago.

It might actually be safer for him right now to be in custody. And if he has violated the terms of his probation, it doesn't really matter what's motivating the authorities to go after him does it? The law is the law and all that. I don't think he's entitled to a pass here and his probation violation excused because we're supposed to see him as a champion of free speech or something.

Saw a clip on the News last night with a Sheikh of Araby being interviewd about the riots - poolside with tables with alcoholic drinks all around and a babe walking by dressed in as brief a bikini as was ever seen in Sports Illustrated.

1. No people overseas really give a flying rats ass about our Sacred Parchment when it conflicts with their values. Anymore than we suddenly stopped and said "Oh, advancing communist revolution anywhere is right in your Holy Constitution..so I guess all the fomenting stuff and subversion propagada you Soviets do is legit and should be respected."All other nations see is the US harboring and protecting people inamicable to them.

2. All too often, we and other so-called enlightened Western nations give sanctuary to people that hate us as much as they hate the "repressive rulers" they fled from. And in the name of FREEDOM!!! and "Protected Speech" then permit the Blind Sheikh, Ayatollah Khoumeni, "Captain Hook" of the Londinistan Mosque, rabid terrorism -advocating Cuban Exiles, IRA goons, African opposition Marxists to agitate and fundraise away in our sanctuary countries.

3. As we give "Sacred Free Speech" sanctuary to such noble hero refugees..of course we have our own views about certain people opposed to America agitating and fomenting away in other countries. People in compliance with the host nations "sacred laws". We send drones in to kill them, and accuse the nations where the sanctuary is given of harboring Terrahist Evildoers!!

4. We have given sanctuary to a career criminal in the case of the Egyptian Copt - well before he and his asshole buddies threw gasoline on the ME fire - and now we are supposed to "Cherish the Freedom he abused"??All while we embark on steps that indicate we want al-Awlaki, Julian Assange and Adam Gadan dead or in chains for their "cherished free speech"???

I really wish Christopher Hitchens was still alive; he would make mincemeat of the liberal media and government response to this incident. In his absence Prof. Althouse is the only voice of reason I am hearing right now.

Hagar said... The folks in "the Arab World" are not rioting because they "hate us," "hate free speech," or whatever. They riot because their governments and religious leaders tell them that all their woes are because of the "Westerners" led by thr United States, not to mention "the Jews;" it is not their own faults, and certainly not their governments'.

Here's Ann Barnhardt doing the job Obama won't do -- standing up for American freedom.

In April 2011 she uploaded a youtube of herself burning the Koran, bookmarked with strips of bacon no less.

In light of recent events she posted this declaration with links to her video.

I demand to be arrested for blasphemy. Now.

The Obama regime is going after the people who made the cheesy mohammed movie that the musloids are blaming the riots on. They are "suggesting" that YouTube "review" the content of the clip of the movie they have posted, and are also now looking to jail one of the filmmakers. In addition, the Obama propaganda arm operating as the L.A. Times has posted pictures and explicit location descriptions of the home of one of the filmmakers, clearly an effort to intimidate the filmmakers and to pass tactical intel to the muslim brotherhood - which is why you always publicize your personal info right off the bat like I did. In doing so you claim a massive tactical advantage and utterly deprive the enemy of his MAIN WEAPON, which is intimidation and fear.

Ladies and gentlemen, what you are witnessing is the establishment of the Sharia, specifically "islamic blasphemy" laws, right here in what used to be called the United States of America.

Well, I have a little something to say about all of this.

I have done what many consider to be the most hard-core, serious koran burning to date. I bookmarked the filthy damn thing with strips of raw bacon, and then I burned the satanic screed page by page after reading the demonic filth therein contained.

What many of you may not know is that very soon after my koran burning went viral, a group of Coptic Christians in Egypt translated it - every word - subtitled it in Arabic, and then posted that version on YouTube. How humbling. Please understand that there is a very good chance that some of the Copts involved in that effort have since been killed in the Christian genocide that has been raging in Egypt, and all throughout the musloid-infected world since early 2011.

What about that movie about the killing of Osama Bin Laden? The one the White House collaborated on? Is there any worry that might, I dunno, anger terrorists or something? Should we stop the production of it?

It is a fact that Mohammad was a pedophile and diddled a nine year old. It's in their hadiths. As is his penchant for violence and killing. Again, all factual statements.So, why this guy is being called before the authorities is beyond me.He has a right to be offensive. It may make him an ahole, but he still has that right. And I'm not even sure if it makes him an a Hole.

There is a restriction on depicting Mohammad through imagery. But that applies to Muslims, it shouldn't be a restriction demanded of non believers.mand if that restriction is violated, a picket may be in order, or a protest, or a boycott. But if the default reaction is violence, then your position frankly deserves to be ridiculed and mocked.Or in this case, truthis merely told.

Mathew sablan wrote:What about that movie about the killing of Osama Bin Laden? The one the White House collaborated on? Is there any worry that might, I dunno, anger terrorists or something? Should we stop the production of it?

lefties don't think that their actions have the same effect as others. They were quick to argue, ack during the bush days about blowback. How by invading Iraq we only creating more terrorists. Yet, many were also arguing that Iraq was a diversion from the REAL war on terror and that Bush should concentrate on Afghanistan instead.Only, why would a jihadi somehow not find an invasion of Afghanistan to be just as much an affront as an invasion in Iraq? Its like they believe that the reason that terrorism would increase is because Bush stole the election, and Bush lied and people died and Iraq as the diversion from the real war on terror.

The hit on Stevens was a professional assassination, using the mob protest as a diversion. Pretty clear what is the dog and what is the tail here.

Maguro: Yes. People, even Ann, seem to lose sight that these violent riots are ginned up behind the scenes by Muslim leaders for their own strategic and tactical reasons, usually to gain power and wage war against the West.

The salient fact of these riots is the date: 9-11.

What more needs to be said? Apparently a lot, because Americans just aren't getting it.

Maguro: Yes. People, even Ann, seem to lose sight that these violent riots are ginned up behind the scenes by Muslim leaders for their own strategic and tactical reasons, usually to gain power and wage war against the West.

Ann has a post a couple of days ago about this very topic, where she asks some hard questions of the NY Times. In other words, she's all over it.

Does anyone really believe that a lame video with only a few views before 9/11 really was the catalyst for these well planned coordinated attacks? There are reports that the State Department had been informed on September 4th that an attack was imminent. When was this video uploaded? Before or after that date. When was it seen by many, before or after it was blamed for the attacks? The facts do not fit the narrative.

This administration spectacularly failed at its duty to keep Americans safe, and to cover up its incompetence it has enlisted its propaganda arm, our "free" media, to blame this on a single citizen. Outrageous!

I don't want to hear another leftist to allege the Republicans are brownshirts and Nazis when they allow and support this action which seems as if it could be something out of Hitler's playbook.

Maguro said...No surprise to see that Cedarford is stupid enough to believe that all this is really a spontaneous reaction to some obscure Youtube video.

================Hardly, fool! It's just a nice, fat, juicy pretext. When you ache to put Serbia in it's proper place, take over Poland, get in Vietnam because the French were too weak to hold the fort against Commie Evildoers, go to Lebanon in 1983 as "peacekeepers" , punish the Infidel dog...pretext can always be found.Gavril Princip, take the Israeli hook and bait and get drawn into Beruit, listen to Curveball on WMD, pay heed to Koran burning moron Fundie Preachers.It's easy.But we shouldn't make it TOO EASY.

Why did we give sanctuary to an Egyptian that has been a career criminal and who has now given the Islamists a fine America-bashing tool? Just play that America-allowed video anytime you want a Insta-Riot and dead Yanks.

Apparently speaking truth to power - long a vaunted leftist tradition - is no longer valid if it annoys muslims.

Nice job, Barry. Piss all over the first amendment just to mollify haters stuck in the seventh century.

Here's an interesting quote to mull over:

Bill Maher made a comedy/documentary called "Religulous" that's most famous for mercilessly mocking Christianity. But what people forget is that the last twenty-minutes or so of the film make a damning case against Islam.

Bill Maher made a film that mocked Islam.

Oh, yes, he did.

Bill Maher also contributed $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC.

Would the WH please be kind enough to let the photogs know in advance when Bill Maher will be dragged out of his house by the FBI for questioning? Asking for a friend.

Barack Obama is willing to to anything, anything to win re-election, including trampling on the first amendment in a vain attempt to appease and mollify violent jihadis who seek the destruction of western civilization.

The assassination of our diplomat is very likely retaliation for drone strikes against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

We murdered the #2 terrorist for Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, Abu Yahya al-Libi, with a drone strike earlier this year.

Al-Qaida is claiming that the murder of our diplomats was inspired by revenge for this earlier drone strike.

That makes sense, yes? When there's an attack on the anniversary of 9/11, my first thought is that al-Qaida is involved.

If we're doing drone strikes against al-Qaida--and we are--it seems really stupid to have minimum security in places where al-Qaida is active.

So now our government is going to blame filmmakers and artists for terrorism?

And our media is going to take the government's side? And also blame filmmakers and artists for terrorism?

We forget that we're at war. (Because liberals don't protest when liberals are at war!) But we are at war. So I find this blaming of artists for violence to be morally reprehensible.

You do a drone strike (without a jury!) so you can avoid waterboarding at Gitmo (still open!) and then when our diplomats are murdered (with no security!) you blame Romney for campaigning during a crisis, while you run off to Vegas to campaign during a crisis and, oh yeah, arrest an artist for making a movie criticizing the great religion of Islam. Because it's his fault.

Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.

I'm sure this issue was raised, along with the warnings from the Egyptians, in President Obama's last week's daily Intell briefings.

Why did we give sanctuary to an Egyptian that has been a career criminal and who has now given the Islamists a fine America-bashing tool? Just play that America-allowed video anytime you want a Insta-Riot and dead Yanks.

Why did we elect a man so intent on Multi-Culturalism that he bows down to foreign officials, signalling to the world that our values of egalitarianism aren't supreme?

Obama said: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." Well, that's a bald faced lie. The National Endowment for the Arts contributed money to the creator of "Piss Christ." Where multiculturalist outrage about denigrating religions then? I was outraged, and I'm an atheist!

So who the hell is the "We" here? Certainly not the US government. It is, and should be, neutral on religious denigration. Like, maybe we don't like religions that stone women to death for having sex, or lash them for driving a car. Maybe we ought to be clear that is contrary to our values. Maybe we ought to say we value free speech above all. You may find it offensive that an American is putting this movie together, but tough shit. We will defend our sovereign territory.

Yes, I realize Obama has gone down the path of multiculturalist appeasement, and once that path is started, dealing with the problem becomes bloodier.

All I have to say is too bad "we" elected that multiculturlist buffoon. Now more lives will be lost.

And shame on leftist idiots who somehow think multiculturalism is some kind of axiomatically consistent philosophy. It isn't, since it has no answer to intolerant cultures, except by adopting PCism to stifle even thinking that it's not.

Multiculturalism and PCism are a direct affront to our constitution, and should be fought and terminated. Let the Europeans have it. Once France has it all sorted out, then we can think about it.

Gaze on that picture and see our government in a sad, shameful display, staged — presumably — to cajole the enemies of free speech into blaming a private individual instead of our country — our country, the caretaker of the freedom that allowed him to speak.

Yeah, but now that you have the proper information, why are you going to insist on focusing on the imagery?

So now our government is going to blame filmmakers and artists for terrorism?

I'm becoming too "anti-Leftist" in my old age to care.

It would be good for Obama if this were for retaliation from Al Qaeda for killing their leaders. Let the press expose Obama's multiculturalist beliefs. Outside of the weak, weedy multiculturalists, what American is going to accept the government can expose free speaking people to terrorists?

Damn few politicans, and as far as I can tell, not a single Democrat, have stood up to say "in our country the government has no right or obligation to determine what people can say."

I'm trying to figure out what our political parties stand for. I'm not sure about Republicans. The Democratic party has reduced itself to the party of abortion. Is there anything else - any thing on earth - that the party will defend absolutely, completely and without reservation? I think not.

This is should send a chilling effect throughout media of all types. The mere fact that this is happening should make you seriously consider if the tyrannical dictatorship is ready and willing to present itself out into the open. It makes the painting the guy made of obama burning the constitution seems a lot more poignant now doesn't it?

The film was used as a device to implore Muslims to engage in public displays of violence on cue. Both Egypt and Libya are war zones where there is a comprehensive transition in a governing authority with a philosophy not favorable to infidels. The violence against Christians and pagan Africans did not begin with the viewing of this film. Muslims have been on a path to murder, rape, and enslave black, brown, and white Africans who they consider to be their inferiors or competing interests.

The attack in Libya against the consulate and murder of the ambassador and other Americans was coordinated and was, ostensibly, designed to recover sensitive and privileged information (e.g. Libyan informants) in the American's possession. It was not the act of a spontaneous mob riot. It was organized and targeted. The street demonstrations served as a convenient distraction.

We have successfully replaced Muslim regimes which were mostly secular and national with imperialist fanatics.

NewAge is the umbrella term for a whole slew of cult-derived belief systems, and, yes, Multiculturalists and PCists are part of it.

Anyone trying to get you to focus on race, pro-or-con (as opposed to merely as an identifier of some kind) is living out the Nazi dream. I don't care if they're black or white - it's the same ideology.

Anyone trying to control your speech or anything other than irrational/illogical behavior, is still trying to control your speech, etc. It's the same ideology.

I always think reading up on Helena Blavatsky is a great place to start studying NewAge,...

But I think our government is delusional if it thinks the people who are rioting in Africa and killing our diplomats would — if they knew the facts — see individuals like Nakoula as the proper focus of their rage.

Here in Northern Virginia we get Al Jazeera as a broadcast channel. According to one of their news reports the "spontaneous" uprisings were planned months ago and merely waiting for a convenient excuse. Note that this is Al Jazeera reporting this.

But I think our government is delusional if it thinks the people who are rioting in Africa and killing our diplomats would — if they knew the facts — see individuals like Nakoula as the proper focus of their rage.

I think the Obama administration is delusional on multiple fronts, but this is not one of them.

It is a sordid effort to pay blackmail to Muslim jihadists in return for "peace in our time" -- basically the next couple of months so Obama can be reelected.

It's also, I suspect, part of Obama's Europeanization policy -- to hamstring freedom of speech and bring the US into alignment with all the PC hate speech rules in other countries.

I always think reading up on Helena Blavatsky is a great place to start studying NewAge

Ug. I should have stopped when I read she studied medieval sorcerers. I suppose that hooked her.

On the other hand, one has to admire the human mind, trying to make sense of things beyond our ken, such as the idea of "something from nothing" (big bang), "Consciousness", "Death", etc.

It is hard to make sense of these things, and if you come up with some abstractions, in her case her three points, you can build a world around it.

For instance, "God created the Universe" explains something that may simply be unknowable. And people don't like the unknown, are fearful of the unknown, and for good reason.

Here is something you may appreciate. It's something on "the other hand." There was this kid at my high school who once said that he wanted to be high on LSD when he died. Obviously not for any comforting effect, but he wanted to go into the unknown and unknowable with maximum disorganization, while still conscious. Me, I hope I simply die in my sleep at some random time, and not know it is coming.

But I think our government is delusional if it thinks the people who are rioting in Africa and killing our diplomats would — if they knew the facts — see individuals like Nakoula as the proper focus of their rage. They don't believe the necessary premise: freedom as the superior value.

Neither do Clinton and Obama.

The reaction of this admin. shouldn't surprise. Back in Sept 2009 I made this comment (as Just Lurking) here at Althouse:

The "race card" is just the king in the deck; along with "sexism" as the queen, and "homophobia" as the jack. "Blasphemy" or "religious intolerance" is a wild card, to be pulled out only in certain circumstances- like to label some one as Islamophobic. The ace up the sleeve is the "hate speech" card.

Google "UN 2009 Free speech Egypt" and you can see where this admin was heading early in its term. The UN anti-blasphemy resolution eventually died in 2011. But I suspect it will make a comeback, especially if Obama is reelected. This admin. sympathizes with the sentiments behind it- hence Clinton's continued denouncement of the "film" and the scapegoating of the filmmaker.

As to the admin's insistence that the film is the cause of the current crisis in the ME, in spite of any evidence to the contrary: Perhaps they really believe that; perhaps they are cravenly pimping this film to avoid facing up to their failures. Perhaps both.

The astounding thing about this case is that parole authorities would ever order someone to refrain from having a computer or using the Internet. It is unacceptable for American authorities to have or use that power against anybody, under any circumstances.

Here is something you may appreciate. It's something on "the other hand." There was this kid at my high school who once said that he wanted to be high on LSD when he died. Obviously not for any comforting effect, but he wanted to go into the unknown and unknowable with maximum disorganization, while still conscious.

I think most people get that without the drugs - if they're awake - you ever watch somebody die? It's not like in the movies. Confusion usually reigns as the thought processes crumble; there's a "grasping" for comprehension that's,..just,...out,...of,...reach,...and then - too late to wave bye-bye - it's frozen into the fisheye.

Me, I hope I simply die in my sleep at some random time, and not know it is coming.

Me, too. My favorite is Steve Jobs:

"Oh wow, oh wow, oh wow,..."

I can see myself there. I definitely won't be afraid. Living, without leaving a mark, that scares me - especially because I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for people. My work may never get done because I simply stopped caring.

I personally do not believe that the President gave a specific order that this fellow should be brought in. More like: "I'd sure like to see the man "explain" himself."

This was all on the smarmy Sheriff, Lee Baca, who thought he could curry some favor with the administration...the guy who took a pretty good department (years ago) and turned it into a political arm that he uses at his whim.

I worked for a Deputy Captain who ran against Baca some years back. Not one deputy I talked to voted against my friend, but we were short money so we lost. The day following the election, my friend was ordered by certified letter to turn in his badge and weapon. My friend's wife, also an LASD Captain was transferred to a remote command that day and made so uncomfortable that she bought out her retirement and left in a few months.

Baca is not really an LEO, he's an arm of the local liberal politics who puts on a real show of humility and service, but he's run his department and jail into a bunch of bullies and mean spirited people.

The filmmaker was unlucky enough to be in Sheriff jurisdiction, but that's not saying much. LA Chief of Police Charlie Beck is about the same.

The LA Times, along with these officials, just signed the filmmaker's death warrant, and we sit here and watch like reality t.v. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

A lawsuit? Recent events have taken my cynicism has reached epic levels. I don't think this administration is the least bit worried about this man filing a lawsuit. Honestly, if he vanished tomorrow would we ever be told about his fate by our current press?

The whole idea that the vioence was sparked by this film is nonsensical. It's not like we haven't seen this game before where the Islamists trump up some pretext to provide a degree of cover for planned, strategic violence. It's a very old tactic. Think even of pogroms in Czarist Russia. And it appears that the attack on the consulate in Libya was al-Qaeda. That said, I think we need to coin a new term to go with Heckler's veto to signify what the government is doing (beyond the blatant effort to distract from the failure of its policies). How about Rioter's veto or Murderer's Veto. Although it's little more than attempting to appease terrorists. And those who think they can appease terrorists simply don't understand them. I used to say about Clinton that he didn't understand evil in the way he lamely responded to terrorism. I guess that never changes.

Scapegoat: one that bears the blame of others ... or so says Ye Olde Merriam-Webster.

That "dynamite doesn't kill, fuses do" is a fallacy does not diminish the potential lethality of fuses.

The innocence of a person who, while violating parole conditions doing so, creates & spreads content that they surely know will very likely lead to violence, destruction & death/s has a very thin reed of freedom of speech to hang from indeed - & their doing so in partnership with Terry Jones makes the current cries of their oppressed innocence into yet another obscenity in the face of basic civic standards ... or so some might argue.